More Obama-O’Reilly: “Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was”

posted at 2:01 pm on February 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Actually, this is a point I make from time to time, too. I ask people to name the President who put peacetime government limits on wages and prices, and created the EPA. Not everyone remembers that Richard Nixon took all of those actions, all of which were ill-considered — and all of which Congress authorized, implicitly and explicitly. But the real entertainment in this taped segment of the Bill O’Reilly-Barack Obama Super Bowl interview that first aired last night isn’t Obama’s attempt to use Nixon to make himself look moderate, but the claim that no one would care about four dead Americans in Benghazi and the incompetence that caused it if it weren’t for those darned kids at Fox News, or something.

Oh, and at the same time, Obama wants Fox to give him some credit for their ratings:

This interview rolls smoother than the live interview aired on Sunday, in which both men kept talking over each other and mostly circled around the legitimacy of the questions. O’Reilly and Obama have a good discussion on poverty and the breakdown of the family, and Obama mostly dodged the Keystone question in an amicable way. The debate gets more contentious around the welfare state, but it’s still sharp and interesting.

But after offering repeated shots at Fox in an interview to which the White House agreed to participate, O’Reilly puts Obama on the spot and challenges him to specify how Fox News has been unfair. Obama gets caught unprepared:

O’REILLY: Fox News. I can’t speak for Fox, but I’m, you know, the table-setter here at 8 o’clock. Do you think I’m unfair to you? Do you think I’ve been giving –

OBAMA: Absolutely, of course you are Bill! But, I like you anyway. Um –

O’REILLY: Ok, but give me how I’m unfair.

OBAMA: It’s, it’s — but, look . . .

O’REILLY: Give me how I’m unfair, c’mon! You can’t make that accusation without telling me!

OBAMA: [Laughs] Bill, we just went through an interview in which you asked about — uh, healthcare not working, IRS, were we wholly corrupt, Benghazi –

O’REILLY: Right.

OBAMA: So the list of issues that you talk about –

O’REILLY: But these are unanswered questions!

OBAMA: But, but, but — they’re defined by you guys in a certain way. But, that — look, this is ok. If you wanna be — if you wanna be President of the United States, then you know you’re gonna be subject to criticism, and –

O’REILLY: But if it’s unfair — I wanna know if it’s unfair.

OBAMA: [Laughs]

O’REILLY: Criticism is criticism! It’s my job to give you a hard time.

OBAMA: Here — here’s what I would say. I think regardless of whether it’s fair or not, it has made Fox News very successful.

O’REILLY: But if I’m unfair, I want –

OBAMA: Here’s — here’s the thing you guys — here’s what you guys are gonna have to figure out, is what are you gonna do when I’m gone? I’m tellin’ ya.

O’REILLY: Our ratings were high when you weren’t here!

OBAMA: Oh, man, you know — [Laughs]

O’REILLY: OOOOH! [Laughs]

OBAMA: I’ve been a big money-maker for you guys. [Laughs]

Yes, because Fox News languished at the bottom of the ratings until 2009. Oh, wait …

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

O’Reilly, when accused of doing the soft shoe with Obama, has said that Obama would never let him do an interview with him again.

Bill should look at it from a different perspective. He should go in with guns blazing, holding Obama’s feet to the fire every second. Then, maybe then, we’d get the answers that America needs to hear.

O’Reilly wouldn’t get another interview, but he would do the country a great service.

Instead, he mealy mouths it so he can get another mealy mouth interview next year.

Does Obama think comparing himself to what is widely considered one of the worst presidents in US history is a good idea?

Rocks on February 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Actually on balance, history has favorably re-assessed RMN’s record. The same will not be said about the rat-eared bastard who would dearly love the kind of popularity numbers Nixon had when he resigned.

That Nixon canard over looks a huge difference in what Nixon authorized and what Obama ended up with. Recall when the dems took the house in 2006 one of the first efforts was to give the EPA the power to create policy (laws). They immediately declared carbon dioxide a pollutant that needed to be “managed”.

Bush would not authorize it while in office. Obama lifted that ban and got the house to pass a carbon tax that the senate never took up. The house under GOP control rescinded the house rule.

“I ask people to name the President who put peacetime government limits on wages and prices, and created the EPA. Not everyone remembers that Richard Nixon took all of those actions, all of which were ill-considered ….”

Wage and price controls, yes, that was both idiotic as there was no significant reason for it and in no way could it be arranged that would not be more of a disaster than not having the controls.

That’s not as much the case regarding the creation of the EPA. The problem with the EPA is/was not it’s creation, but the control and limitations of it, combined with the abdication of responsibility by the states to things on their own. But even if the states had acted, I don’t know whether they could, on their own resolve interstate issues. The Great Lakes Commission indicates it might have, but the acid rain issue indicates it might not.

All fun and games these two. If memory serves Bill has been late to the party. Again. I guess the former Entertainment Tonight fellow is just naturally slow on the uptake. They make a fine pair. Get a room!!!

Well, we can debate how Liberal the Nixon Administration was,
but one thing is certain…Eric Holder is a dead ringer
for John Mitchell.

ToddPA on February 4, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Eric Holder is far more corrupt and dishonest than John Mitchell.

The entire interview clearly demonstrates what many of us already knew / believed about Obama… feckless, thin-skinned, petulant, contemptuous, narcissistic, an ideologue, and is fundamentally dishonest.

His agenda was to play to his base, spinning and blaming Fox News for the fact that these stories / issues remain stories and issues despite the fact that none of the questions from them have ever been answered. He also demonstrates his contempt for those who disagree with him.

His glib answer that Nixon was more liberal plays to the vapidity and revisionism that is commonplace – particularly since Obama’s paranoia, lack of transparency, and abuses of power can be argued exceeded that of Nixon and his Administration.

He points to Nixon’s creation of the EPA as an example of Nixon’s ‘liberalism’ – yet the EPA as created is a far cry from the regulatory agency that abuses its power / charter regularly within the Obama Administration. With the Obama Administration, we can point to the abuses of power being the rule rather than the exception…and this is being done without Congressional review, oversight, or approval.

Let’s remember that when Obama took office in 2009, he attempted to move quite far to the left with his ambitious progressive agenda, but even with super-majorities in Congress, could only get the ACA and Dodd/Frank megabills passed.

Obama’s comparison to Nixon is little more than a freudian slip – comparing his corrupt, abusive Administration to another corrupt and abusive Administration…but fails to recognize that in that comparison, Obama’s record is far worse. What’s saving Obama is the media’s bias.

Nixon basically let the Democrats have their way on domestic policy so that they would leave him alone on foreign policy, which was where Nixon felt most comfortable and felt his skills were best applied.

I loved the part about “not even a smidgeon of corruption” in the IRS of which the leader pled the Fifth before Congress.
jdpaz on February 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM

He has to say this. It’s integral to the Big Lie. Any concession to truth opens the door for more concessions. The total lockdown on the truth is the only possibility. Look at the history of all totalitarian governments everywhere. This is how it works. Ultimately they all implode. Will this one? I wonder. Americans don’t seem to care, and the police state here is so much larger and powerful.

Now, blaming Fox News for Obama’s scandals is like blaming rubble for an earthquake. FNC did not create ObamaCare or target enemies for IRS investigations. His people inflicted that pain. FNC just asked about the bruising.

But to use a football metaphor, once again, FNC is that sole remaining cheerleader who won’t end up under the bleachers with the star QB.

Even sitting with O’Reilly, whom I also can’t stand…obama is exposed as the completely vacuous twit he is, without prepared, slick-assed remarks being fed to him on the TotUS.
What a useless talentless jackass.

Bill should look at it from a different perspective. He should go in with guns blazing, holding Obama’s feet to the fire every second. Then, maybe then, we’d get the answers that America needs to hear.

Obama doesn’t have the ability answer truthfully, or even directly. It’s always a dodge and redirect.

It’s, it’s — but, look . . .
But, but, but —
But, that — look, this is ok.
If you wanna be — if you wanna be President
Here — here’s what I would say.
Here’s — here’s the thing you guys —
I’m tellin’ ya.
Oh, man, you know —
I’ve been a big money-maker for you guys.

How exactly is this more sophisticated and intelligent than Sarah Palin?

Who could have suspected that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi would spark a national rejection of their party that outdid Watergate?

…

Obama has been called Nixonian before, but never in this context. When he charged to victory in 2008, Democrats thought they had unlocked the secret of marrying a progressive to the broad center of American politics. Instead, his radical agenda has alienated the center and leaves Democrats with a sharply reduced national base for their future.

—

Yes, Obama was re-elected in 2012, and I know that almost half the population appears to be more concerned with free phones and EBT cards than with the integrity of the President or the insurance industry, but I remain hopeful that the 2014 mid-terms will keep the House and return the Senate to Republican control.

At that point, if we can get enough Democrats who care more about the country (or at least their own careers) than their political party, we could repeal Obamacare with 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate, and override Obama’s veto.

He’s got a point. During his presidency a select group of folks have indeed received quite a lot of money at the expense of the average American. However, this happens in every presidency I’m sure. What’s remarkable is that the sheer bold facedness and volume of it all is truly astonishing…and he got re-elected anyway. Wow.

Does Obama think comparing himself to what is widely considered one of the worst presidents in US history is a good idea?

Rocks on February 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM

The funny thing is, he was trying to find a president that would make him look good by comparison.

And failed.

Nixon was smarter, more effective, and less corrupt. And frankly, I don’t know if Nixon would have been as corrupt as he was if he hadn’t watched Kennedy and Johnson steal the 1960 election and get away with it.

At any rate, Nixon didn’t steal any elections. The scandal that brought him down was nothing he did himself, but covering up for incompetent thieves from his party during Watergate.

Does Obama think comparing himself to what is widely considered one of the worst presidents in US history is a good idea?

Rocks on February 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM

The funny thing is, he was trying to find a president that would make him look good by comparison.

And failed.

Nixon was smarter, more effective, and less corrupt. And frankly, I don’t know if Nixon would have been as corrupt as he was if he hadn’t watched Kennedy and Johnson steal the 1960 election and get away with it.

At any rate, Nixon didn’t steal any elections. The scandal that brought him down was nothing he did himself, but covering up for incompetent thieves from his party during Watergate.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 4, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Nearly forgot: Nixon inherited a war going badly in Vietnam, and absolutely won it. Granted, the Democrat Congress after he was gone threw the victory away and let our ally South Vietnam get overrun, in one of the most shameful things ever done by our government.

Obama, on the other hand, was handed a war that had been won in Iraq, and we’re watching it spin back into chaos. And the minor war in Afghanistan has been handled disastrously.

It’s interesting: John F. Kennedy was a decorated WWII combat veteran and staunch anti-communist Cold War hawk who got elected in 1960 in part by maneuvering to Nixon’s right on national security affairs. He was a tax-cutting supply-sider who believed that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” He was a Life member of the NRA.

Nixon, on the other hand, was a big government liberal who created a bunch of intrusive nanny state agencies (EPA, OSHA, DEA, ATF). He took the U.S. off the gold standard, instituted wage and price controls, and signed into law the 55 MPH speed limit. On foreign affairs, he withdrew U.S. troops from Vietnam, pursued detente and negotiated strategic arms limits with the Soviets, and opened diplomatic relations with Red China.

By any measure, were he alive today, JFK would fit right in with the Christie-Romney wing of the Republican Party, whereas Milhouse would almost certainly be a liberal Democrat. Yet, ironically, the left still regards Kennedy as a secular martyr saint, and still foams at the mouth with a seething rage at the mention of Nixon’s name. I guess they can just never forgive him for his anti-communist activism early in his congressional career.

Socialists are thin skinned and intolerant of any criticism other than criticism they approve of. Which is, basically, none. Because such criticism must first recognize the glorious successes and accomplishments of socialism, and only offer up ‘constructive’ ideas for improvement of socialist prescriptions. Forward comrades!

Anyone ever wonder how Europe, and the rest of the world, can be awash in socialists who have no qualms about calling themselves socialists, while in the USA we have virtually none, allegedly? And yet the majority of Dems admire and look wistfully upon the socialism rampant in Europe.

It is because American socialists refuse to admit they are what they are. The only ‘American Exceptionalism’ US socialists recognize is how amazingly exceptional the US is in its lack of socialists.